the water, oxygen will be driven off. The amount will vary with the amount of heating. Oxygen recovery on a stream occurs by various means:

1. Rapids in a river, which we do not have on the St. Croix below this site; 2. Dams or spillways, which we also do not have on the river below this plant;

3. Wave action, which we do have, but only in the summer. Depending upon amount of open water in the winter, icing will cut down the lake surface; and

4. Living organisms within the water which, in themselves, are very delicate, susceptible to temperature change, and can be killed. This drastically reduces the river's oxygen-recovery power.

Sewage plants along the river discharge their treated sewage into the St. Croix and other tributary rivers. The closest sewage treatment plant to the proposed generating plant is Stillwater. Heating of this partially treated sewage can cause many problems. Examples of these problems include the following:

Heating drastically increases bacterial action. Bacterial action is the prime decomposer of sewage, which accounts for streams purifying themselves, provided the pollution level is not high. During this increased bacterial action, large demands are made on the oxygen within the streams and at some times to a point possibly using all the available oxygen. There are numerous accounts, other than on the St. Croix as yet, where this heat has depleted the oxygen and mass fish kill has resulted. The clean bacteria, which does the work of decomposing the sewage, is very sensitive to heat changes. Heat can also kill these bacteria if the temperature change is too severe and then the sewage would not decompose at all; it would then pass on downstream unabated and the stream would not purify itself.

The river presumably would be partially ice free for a considerable distance downstream-approximately 3 miles or so. Warm water tends to remain on the top of the pool of water thus tending to render the mixing inefficient. This ice-free area would then affect the ice fishing, ice sailing, and the auto racing. Now, some would presume that this increase in temperature during the winter would be beneficial but we have to consider the foods upon which fish feed. Some eggs of a food chain called Daphnia have to be chilled or frozen before they hatch. Some of another food chain, called diatoms, abound only at temperatures below 50° F. If the river temperatures are affected enough, these fish foods may not be available. Yes, there are other foods but can we risk the loss of these? Gentlemen, we cannot answer this question; we need biological studies by fisheries experts for this.

As water temperatures rise, aquatic organisms require more dissolved oxygen yet, temperature is the most important single factor affecting the solubility of oxygen.

We are not just concerned with the present change; we are also concerned with what will happen in the future. We do not want to see the growth of the valley stagnated because we have used up all the resources of the river. Our residential and recreational population, as I have previously stated, has grown by leaps and bounds. All of the towns along the river have sewage treatment plants. These plants are presently doing the job of reducing the sewage to a point where the river is acceptable for all the uses we have described. But none of these sewage plants have complete treatment so they must rely on the bacteria and oxygen in the river to completely purify this sewage.

When all studies on the river water's characteristics are completed, we may find that the biological oxygen demand is as high as it can presently be. We must, therefore, make every effort to require every water user to keep or return the water in as good a state as it was when taken from the river. At least, all technological ability must be used to insure that river quality will not be jeopardized.

There are many pollutant elements we cannot control, nor do we even know their source. In the St. Croix Valley, we have an unusual situation where a certain amount of the drainage area contributing to the river is wooded. Rainfall water partially decays the fallen leaves and grasses, and then carries certain minute portions of decayed matter into the stream, creating an oxygen demand for further decay. Naturally, we do not wish to reduce the wooded area so we live with nature's oxygen demand.

The counties abutting the river are heavily farmed, and, as such, fertilized. A certain portion of these fertilizers find their way to the stream, causing some effects on plant growth and many other yet unknown effects.

40-957-65-9

With this area becoming a "suburbia," we are subject to some uncontrollable erosion which results in silt in the stream. Lake St. Croix is quite large and can, perhaps, stand a substantial amount of silting before it gets filled, but this is not the problem as much as the effect on plants, micro-organisms and fish spawn which can be trapped or destroyed on the bottom of the river.

Many beneficial pesticides are now being used to great advantage to the farmer, and must continue to be used, but a certain portion of these have found their way into streams, having harmful effects on fish and aquatic plants.

The St. Croix River is used very extensively by boats, as we all know, and this will continue and increase. Although both the States of Minnesota and Wisconsin now have boat toilet laws, there will still be some uncontrollable pollution added to the waters from this source.

I reiterate that we must extend a herculean effort to preserve what water quality we now have with the realization that with "progress" comes some uncontrollable pollution; but, if we overuse our natural resources, we will destroy those resources and pay much too much for the march of progress.

We now come to the control of this resource by legal means. As such, no written standards of water quality have been set for the St. Croix River, nor have any hearings been set to search out people's desires and needs as guide in establishing standards.

We have been told that there is not time to establish standards previous to consideration of this plant, the proposed Allan S. King steam-electric generating plant.

If we had Federal standards, as provided in S. 649, then we would have guidelines to protect our resources. I am convinced that no equitable evaluation of powerplant effects on this valley can be made without such standards, even if they do require considerable study.

To the best of our knowledge, there are only a few scattered water test results available and a short, 2-week study made recently by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. I don't believe these are sufficient to make a proper assessment of our present situation, much less project the future effects of this proposed plant.

There are those who would object to evaluation of the future of our natural resources by the Federal Government. Some would like the Federal Government to be the "Big Bad Wolf" in this respect; so I submit that the Federal Government should intervene because it is far less likely to be influenced by local pressures, lobbies, and other efforts and could make a judgment more equitable to all concerned than could any other governmental unit.

Mr. THUET. Our next speaker, Mr. Chairman, will be our president of Save the St. Croix, a very eminent chemical engineer, who has lived in this valley for over 20 years, Mr. Carl A. Pemble.

STATEMENT OF CARL A. PEMBLE, PRESIDENT, SAVE THE

ST. CROIX, INC.

Mr. PEMBLE. Senator Nelson, Senator Metcalf, and others here, thank you for helping in the general problem of which you are an example. My remarks may seem, to some extent, to repeat those of Mr. Mertes. However, I will pay more attention to the amount of heat, how it gets into the river, and its effect, especially in the hot days of August, which is the critical month.

It is unfortunate that the extent of concern by so many for conservation of and for the St. Croix River is manifested only now after the future of the river has been placed in doubt. Perhaps too many of us believed that the best things in life are free until we learned that our right to clean air and clean, cool water must be defended.

However, we are not engaged in a fight, but in the resolution of a problem about the use of natural resources. To this project we bring our different needs, values, and opinions. And here again, we see that a lot of trouble could have been avoided had the opinions of all been considered much sooner. Instead, there has been and still is stubborn resistance to regional planning.

Some people, beyond differing with the values we place on the river, say they can see no cause for concern about water and air pollution. Very well, we shall submit facts and figures to show that there is cause for concern. You know, people have stood up at meetings to say, "Give us the facts, but don't bother us with figures. Your numbers are too big and scary."

But if we want to understand what goes here, we can't avoid the numbers. I hope you will notice how just "big" and "scary" numbers

are.

My report is documented in footnotes, but they would be too cumbersome to mention here in my oral summary.

My calculations have been checked by competent colleagues.

I would like to correct a little slip of Mr. Ewald's. He mentioned 1,300 cubic feet per second as the minimum low flow in the record. I am sure this was a mistake. On the fact sheets of Northern States Power it shows much lower flow and such are a matter of record of the geological survey. It might give rise to questions later on. I am sure there was no intention to deceive there.

Senator METCALF. While we are talking about the statement of Mr. Ewald, I wonder if you would comment on the fact, in his fact sheet he said, in the winter water temperature would be increased to 30°. Wasn't that a slip, too?

Mr. PEMBLE. No. They increase the temperature more in the winter so the ice won't clog up their canals and their condensers and so forth. They could have a freezeup that would shut them down if they allowed the ice to melt.

Senator METCALF. So there would be such an increase. The statement was, at the point of discharge the total temperature rise of the condensing water will be about 17° in the summer. He testified that would be 10° to 17° in the summer, and about 30° in the winter. Mr. PEMBLE. Yes.

Senator METCALF. That was not a slip?

Mr. PEMBLE. That is correct, that is quite correct. They would have to do some recirculating by some other means, I suppose, than out through the river. That is necessary, otherwise, they would have frozen canals and it would shut them down.

Senator NELSON. We didn't get to inquiring about this question yesterday, as I recall. This afternoon I would like to pose the question to the Northern States Power Co.

It is my understanding that as a matter of policy or law in England the power companies are required when they are drawing the water from public streams to erect cooling towers in order to return the water back to the stream in roughly the same condition and the same temperature as it was withdrawn.

My inquiry is whether there is any reason why a country such as ours, which is obviously much richer than England, shouldn't require the same standards. Are you aware of this practice and policy, and do you have any information on it?

Mr. PEMBLE. Yes. It is covered later in my report, this particular point. So, if you don't mind, I will continue and take it up at that time.

Senator NELSON. You just proceed.

Mr. PEMBLE. In regard to the proposed plant, I am going to consider just the first unit, because the application for a permit to dump

heat into the St. Croix River before the water pollution control commission covers just this first unit now. We must remember the second unit, planned for completion in 1970, would more than double the pertinent figures that follow in this report.

The expected maximum capability of its first unit is 600,000 kilowatts. This is more than twice the peakload of the city of St. Paul. Not that St. Paul needs this electricity, the generating capacity within the city limits is already double the peakload of the city.

The boiler capacity, the fundamental measurement of the plant's coal-burning ability is 240 tons per hour. This amounts to over 5,000 tons a day, or 2 million tons per year, which is twice the coal burned in the city of St. Paul, Minneapolis, and adjacent suburbs in the year of 1958 in accordance with the board of health survey. The proposed plant, being the most efficient, would be run at maximum capacity for as much time as possible. And, of course, load fluctuates and at times it would be lower than capacity load, but this point wouldn't slow down at such times. The less efficient plans would ease off, this would be the most economical way in which to operate the whole system. It is all one big system with more than one plant on the lines.

Now, only about two-fifths of all this power, this energy, goes to make electricity which is salable. About the same amount of power in the form of waste heat goes out with the steam from the condensers, the lower pressure steam-pardon me, not from the condensers, from the turbines-it goes to the condensers where this heat is removed from it by transference through the walls of the condensers to another body of water which we call the coolant on the outside wall, so to speak, of the condensers.

One method of disposing of this heat is to circulate this coolant water through huge trickling towers where by evaporation and contact of the air, the heat is lost to the atmosphere. The cooled water then can return to the condensers. Or another variation as suggested by Senator Nelson would be that these waters would be returned to the river somewhat cooled by passage through these trickling towers. In response to the other question, the cost of these towers, this is according to Mr. Hill, a statement made at the water pollution control commission meeting on August 21, would be a half million or $600,000 a year which sounds like a lot of money, but in view of the scope of this operation, when you reduce this to cost per kilowatt-hour, it turns out to be about a penny for a hundred kilowatt-hours.

The Northern States Power Co. wants to save this penny and dump the heat right into the river. This would be accomplished by simply circulating the water through the condensers, from the water from the river, and the company has applied to the water pollution control commission for permission to dump into the St. Croix River 2,520 million British thermal units per hour.

What will be the effects of dumping this heat into the river?

There are two obvious facts that indicate need to study the hazard. A little aside here, we didn't go off half-cocked or something of that sort, we didn't all of a sudden become knowledgeable about this. We see this is an enormous amount. We made some careful studies and this indicates that more studies are needed until we arrive at the point where we feel a very comprehensive study is needed by duly qualified experts and authorities.

This is an enormous amount of heat, it is the equivalent of 2,000 tons of coal burned per day. To put this in familiar terms, it would be the heat output of 20,000 home heating furnaces going full blast. That is about 10 times the domestic heating capacity of the city of Stillwater.

The second obvious fact is that the St. Croix River is a small river as regards flow. It is quite obvious if you go above Stillwater. At Stillwater it becomes broader and deeper, forming Lake St. Croix.

From Lake St. Croix, below the sewage plant as Mr. Mertes pointed out, they propose to take 660 cubic feet per second, lead it down to a canal to the condensers, and heat it there by 17 degrees.

We have had statements that there will be a cooling effect as it spends its 10 hours going down through the bay, but I suspect this would be sort of an average figure for the year. I am going to be concerned here with the hot months of August, which, in my opinion, not so very much cooling could occur there.

The heated water then flows down through the bay and mixes with the St. Croix River at the site of the Bayport swimming beach, and what is designated as the "mixing zone," whose boundaries vary with flow and other factors. Within this "mixing zone," temperatures vary from that of the upstream temperatures from the condensers down to the temperature of the river below, vary from place to place and time to time. This mixup thing presents, in itself, some hazards for fish life and aquatic life.

As the mixing waters seek downstream, the mixing finally is complete enough so that the temperature pattern of the river resembles that of the normal river upstream, except that it is warmer. To estimate the effects on the life and sanitary problems of the river, we have